On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > +
>> > + eeprom@42 {
>> > + compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
>> > + //FIXME: Should be I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS | 0x42
>> > + reg = <0xc0000042>;
>>
>> The node name doesn't match the reg property anymore. Isn't that considered as
>> a problem ?
>
> Hmm, true. So far, Rob (CCed) was fine with this approach:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-tegra/msg22760.html
>
> @Rob: If we introduce flag bits in the MSBs of an I2C address, the reg
> property is different from the node name. Is this a problem?
No, I don't it is a problem.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
